This was one of those books that I had in my head as being "Germaine Greer is deciding that instead of sexualising girls, we should start sexualising boys." and I thought that what I was saying was outrageous but after reading this I think I was actually just kind of downplaying it if anything. Really a strange book overall, and I think people are like "Oh, Greer is called a pedophile for this, but actually she spends so much time going on about art and the beauty of boys." but like so much of this book is literally just about sexualising teenaged boys. Bjorn Andresen, the subject of the front page cover of this book, took a lot of objection with how he was depicted in this book in particular, but god those early segments of this book were so squeamish to me.
That's kind of what Greer feels like to me, where she makes these "provocative" statements that are actually quite indefensible, and then so much of it is this academic obfuscation that seemingly tries to work its way out of it and justifies it. There's passages in this book which outright argue about lowering the age of consent, for instance, and these quite lurid photos being painted in this even more lurid context. Greer tries to play it off like it's showing "sympathy and vulnerability" and that it's "showing the beauty, the reclamation that us women should have over it." and god, there's actually something about this book where the copywrite feels isomorphic to a sarcastic description deriding the book. Whatever merit this book has is lost with its context and just the early segments of it that some people might see as "provocation" but I think of as being just indefensible, and in effect is literally is just an argument for objectification just in this 'opposite', 'correct' direction. Not "male gaze" but "female gaze" etc.
Speaking of Bjorn Andresen, he was also one of the central inspirations behind the character design of Reinhard in the manga/anime The Rose of Versailles, and I think it also serves as a weird sort of antidote for the way that he's depicted in this book. There it actually seems like the inspiration and tribute to Bjorn is actually nice and not perverse. Like Greer talks about how "I'm reclaiming a visage from gay men for us women." but one of the things that Andresen makes a specific objection to was the objectification from gay men he received at the time while filming Death in Venice. In effect it replicates what he went through, and I can see precisely why he hated this book. I don't know but sometimes people go on about how "sophisticated" the arguments are in this book, but like having an art history lesson about Caravaggio or something doesn't excuse the things presented in this book.
Yeah, it's just weird. Sometimes you think you're being "unfair" to someone and then you do your research into it and you find out you were precisely right about them.